He’s not wrong—but what is wrong is his attempt to justify using history to normalize humanity’s failure to learn from it. If your argument for a now-confirmed famine is, “Well, it was worse in the past. At least the number of atrocities is down,” then you’re objectively a bad person. Next, the liberal-washing argument will be, “Well, 27 million Russians died in WWII—at least it’s less egregious this century.”
That's the crux of his and BlueMAGA's argument for Kamala: "10% less genocide than the other side", and why since the election they have been nothing but ghoulish crash outs in ways that would make Goebbels and Ben Gvir and Verwoerd proud

